Jharkhand High Court
Madhu Devi vs Anupam Kumar Singh on 30 June, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Civil Miscellaneous Appellate Jurisdiction)
M.A. No. 262 of 2020
......
1.Madhu Devi
2.Divya Kumari
3.Tanu Kumari
4.Akansha Kumari
5.Sonakshi Kumari
6.Mahi Kumari
7.Kanti Devi
8.Sudeshwar Thakur ....... Appellants
Versus
1.Anupam Kumar Singh
2.Chitranjan Singh
3.SBI General Insurance Co. Ltd.
4.Shiv Kumar Thakur ......Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO
(Through : Video Conferencing)
For the Appellants : Mr. Arvind Kumar Lall, Advocate
For the Resp. No.3 : Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
03/Dated: 30/06/2021.
Heard, learned counsel for the parties.
The claimants namely, 1.Madhu Devi, 2.Divya Kumari, 3. Tanu
Kumari, 4.Akansha Kumari, 5.Sonakshi Kumari, 6. Mahi Kumari, 7.Kanti
Devi and 8.Sudeshwar Thakur have preferred the instant Miscellaneous
Appeal for enhancement of the award dated 27.06.2020 passed by learned
District Judge- cum- M.A.C.Tribunal, Palamau at Daltonganj in M.A.C.C.
No.54 of 2018, whereby the claimants have been awarded compensation to
the tune of Rs.16,93,552/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date
of filing of the claim application till realization of the amount. However,
amount of Rs.3 lacs shall be paid in the joint names of the claimant no.7,
Kanti Devi and claimant no.8, Sudeshwar Thakur (both parents).
Learned counsel for the appellants, Arbind Kumar Lall has assailed the
impugned award on the ground that though the learned Tribunal has
considered the income of the deceased- Dilip Thakur, who was a wall putty
painter to be Rs.7,550/- per month on the basis of Government Notification
of Jharkhand Minimum Wages 2018, but the income ought to have been more
than the Government's notification.
Learned counsel for the appellants has further submitted that A.W.-1
(Ajay Ram) in para 3, A.W.-3 (Nand Kishore Yadav) in para 3 and A.W.-4
(Madhu Devi) in para 4 have categorically stated that the income of the
deceased to be Rs.450/- per day or Rs. 2,500/- per week, but in absence of
any documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal has considered the income
of the deceased on the basis of Government Notification 2018 to be Rs.7,550/-
per month, as such, this income may be enhanced.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company, Mr. Ashutosh Anand has
opposed the prayer and submitted that compensation ought to have been just
and fair compensation and only on the basis of oral evidence, income cannot
be considered by the learned Tribunal further interest @ 9% per annum has
been granted from the date of application, which ought to have been @ 7.5%.
Other principles have been rightly followed by the learned Tribunal, as such,
this Court may not interfere in the income of the deceased per month as
calculated by the learned Tribunal to the tune of Rs.7,550/- of an accident
which took place on 09.04.2018.
Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has submitted that this
Court has taken a consistent view relying upon the judgment passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chameli Devi vs. Jivrail Mian,
reported in 2019 (4) TAC 724 SC, as the Apex Court has considered the
income of the deceased to be Rs.5,000/- even in absence of documentary
evidence, when the deceased was a carpenter and the occurrence is of the
year, 2001, as such, in the present case the unfortunate accident took place in
the year, 2018 and the learned Tribunal has rightly considered the income of
the deceased to be Rs.7,500/- per month, which does not required to be
interfered by this Court and that too when the same is based upon
Government Notification of 2018.
Considering the rival submissions of the parties, it is true that in
absence of any documentary evidence, it is very difficult to ascertain the
exact income of the deceased or loss of the dependents, but some method has
to be evolved. The court while awarding compensation cannot give
compensation as bonanza or a booty rather it should be a compensation but
also not a pittance. Since the income of the deceased, who lost his life in the
year, 2018 is considered to be Rs.7,550/- per month, this Court has no reason
to interfere with the same, which is based upon the Government Notification
issued under the Jharkhand Minimum Wages 2018. Apart from that in the
case of Chameli Devi (Supra), the Apex Court has considered the income of a
carpenter, who is like same as a wall putty painter to be Rs.5,000/- in the year
2001, as such, in my view, no interference is required.
On the other hand, interest has been awarded on the higher side i.e.
@9% which ought to have been @7.5%, in view of the judgment passed by the
Apex Court in the case of Dharampal & Sons Vs. U.P. Transport
Corporation, reported in (2008) 4 JCR 79 SC.
Since the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and
fair compensation, as such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the
same.
Accordingly, the instant Miscellaneous Appeal being devoid of merit is
hereby dismissed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.)
R.S.
